So let's look at the question of if your post addressed humans being a subcategory of homosapiens or homo sapiens being a subcategory of human.
So first we start with a theory of sets. There is a set that contains biologic animals. Dogs, amoebas, fish, primates, humans are all members of this set. So basically if you are a member of the animal kingdom, you are a member of this set. Then there is also a set of spiritual beings. God, angels (good and bad), etc are members of this set. So are people. So if you picture a Venn diagram, people and God (Jesus) belong in the intersection between the animals and the spiritual beings. Agree so far?
This is questionable considering that Genesis 1 calls living creatures nephesh, or souls. But out of interest in the topic, I'll look past this.
View attachment 344784
Ok, now comes the question. Do all people belong in that intersection, or are there some people that are just animals and not spiritual beings?
So to rephrase, are there people that are homosapiens but not humans? Or are humans a subcategory of homosapiens?
I think Job 33:6 (the person, not the verse) answered that for us before on a moral level, when he said that all people are people, all people have a soul. He specifically said that all people, regardless of how they were born, whether by natural birth or in a test tube or cloned, are still people with a soul.
Animals in Genesis have souls too. But that's fine. So he's saying that people of humanity, in accordance with Genesis 1:26, have souls. Got it. So the question is, could there be homo sapiens, not created in the image of God, that do not have souls?
Now of course if we start arguing, on a moral level, that not all people are the same, that some are more human than others, we can quickly get into issues of supremacy. Which I am sure we all here disagree with? I sure hope so. So, we can assume that all people are the same, and therefore there is no such thing as a person without a soul.
The Bible never says that there never were homosapiens without souls, say, 200,000 years ago for example.
Ok, now what else do we know about people? We know that all people and only people are made in God's image and have been made that way from the beginning. Genesis 1:26.
Yes that's the definition in the Bible. That's what makes humanity unique.
We know that all people and only people have been told to have dominion over creation.
Humanity in Genesis 1:26 yes, but the Bible doesn't say anything about homosapiens 200,000 years ago.
We know that all have sinned and all can be saved by faith. Romans 3:23-24. (I will quickly address Job 33:6 theology that the Romans passage does not apply to prehistoric people. The Romans passage does not say anything about time. It talks about all jews and gentiles, which is another way of saying all jews and not jews. That means all people, including Abraham, Noah, Adam, and Adam's parents if Adam had parents.)
Sure. But again, nothing here that you've quoted suggests that humanity in Genesis 1:26 can be equated to a scientific definition of homo sapiens.
View attachment 344786
What does this mean? Well, in order to be saved by faith, we need to have higher order thinking ability, as in we need to be able to understand concepts like God, sin, death, a need for saviour, eternal life, eternal suffering, etc. In order to be rulers we need to be able to make judgement calls, which at minimum requires a capacity to know what is fair and what is not fair. In order to sin, we need to have the ability to know right and wrong. What I refer to as moral capacity.
That's fine. God wouldn't call on a fish to subdue and rule because it may not understand what that means. And so I would agree that humanity would be some kind of hominid.
But again, are humans a subcategory of homosapiens? Or could homosapiens be a subcategory of human? These questions have yet to be addressed.
Which species in the history of the world had the capacity for this higher order brain functions? The only species that I am aware of is homo sapiens. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This is undetermined. We talked about neanderthals having music and burial sites and artwork. Neanderthals are a separate species from homo sapiens though they did also interbreed. So in this sense, again, posing this question does not clarify, are humans a subcategory of homosapiens or homosapiens a subcategory of human?
If neanderthals were human, then humanity wouldn't be limited to one species. But even if we viewed them as being of the same species as ourselves, we have many other hominid species as well, some that used fire, had tools, artwork etc. we don't know what capacity they had to judge right from wrong.
It's simply undetermined.
And nothing above addresses the possibility of humanity being a subcategory of homo sapiens either.